This blog post is in response to Stephen Garrett's post: http://old-baptist-test.blogspot.com/2011/07/two-heads.html.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Jason is a rebel against the plain teachings of scripture, a sign of his cult status. The passages mentioned could not be any clearer about how God begets by the gospel. Were Peter, James, and Paul not stating how God begets sinners? How God did it normally, regularly, universally? Where is Jason's authority for affirming that these writers are only saying that some were begotten by the gospel? Is Jason admitting that these passages teach that the early Christians were begotten by the gospel? Why won't Jason simply deal with the passages themselves?"
As posted earlier, Dr. Gill allowed for the validity of viewing these passages apart from gospel means, as the "Word of God" in James 1:18 and 1 Peter 1:23 is translated from the Greek word, logos, which refers to Jesus Christ. Gill also argued that 1 Cor. 4:15's use of "begotten" was plausibly interpreted as a drawing out of the principle of grace infused in men at regeneration - what I have called the root of faith of trust in God, indicating that the term "begotten" is not regeneration in the first instance, but a context of gospel conversion.
I acknowledge that Gill would insist that this conversion follows regeneration for those sons under the sound of the ministry of the gospel, for it is completely consistent with the principle of grace infused in regeneration - a position I endorse. I think these texts can be used to support the inference that a general gospel rejection by sons is not consistent of those that have truly experienced the new birth.
However, to infer a strict timetable of conversion immediately following regeneration repudiates Luke 22:31,32. Brother Garrett agrees that this text's use of "converted" cannot refer to regeneration, which is exactly my point. These texts prove a context of gospel conversion apart from regeneration, which he even admits.
Brother Garrett was confused why I brought up Luke 22:31,32 in the context of James 1:18. I brought it up in the context of my exegesis of James 1:18 to show that, though I argued that James 1:18 refers to sonship and discipleship (as they were reborn to be a firstfruit of the elect), the gospel conversion of Peter shows that the discipleship was of varying degrees and of diverse process, as he denied Christ.
Brother Garrett stated:
"When Peter says - "and this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you," he simply is saying "this is the message which was announced to you by the gospel." So, how does this destroy Peter's affirmation that God's elect are "born again by the incorruptible word"?
What is "the word of God proper"? Is it not the message about Jesus and God's plan of salvation? Is this word different from "the truth" (vs. 22)? Peter said, earlier in the chapter, "Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls." (vs. 9) Faith in what? Is it not the revelation of God pertaining to Christ and salvation, or to the message of the gospel? Faith in this "word of God"? Is this incorruptible word the same as "the gospel" (vs. 12)? When Peter says, a few verses later, "As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby" (2: 3), what "word" is under consideration? Is not "THE word" the same word of I Peter 1: 23?"
The incorruptible word and what I refer to as the "word of God proper" is Jesus Christ, the logos, as Dr. Gill entertained as plausible from this text in both his commentary and in his Body of Divinity. It is different from verse 3 of chapter 2, as the "word" of 2:3 is not "logos", and refers to the gospel that is preached in 1:25. The "truth" of 1:22 must be the gospel, as the text is posed in a volitional context, but it is the sanctifying and converting influence of gospel obedience that is in view there.
Brother Garrett states:
"Jason shows himself to be in a quagmire, on a slippery slope himself. His problem is with his use of human reason in trying to understand the things of God! At first he argues that regeneration cannot be on a mental or conscious level because some are regenerated who have no mental or conscious life and yet, at other times, is forced to see regeneration as incorporating revelation, or being taught something by God. He argues, on the one hand, that the infant and the idiot prove his hardshellism, and then, on the other hand, says that God can give mental power to such characters! He speaks of what is "logically preferable"! Was it logical or reasonable for God to tell Ezekiel to preach to dead dry bones in order that they might live?"
In reference to Ezekiel, is it not logical to suppose that with God all things are possible? In any event, you have my argument completely wrong. I did not argue for God giving mental powers to those intellectually incapable. I rebutted this option as a logically inferior idea because this theory links faith to mental awareness, which would require that God make the mental powers permanent, not temporary. Once their understanding left them, it would seem to logically follow that a condition of salvation that is contingent on mental faith would also be lost. And if not, why would it not?
Brother Garrett's rebuttal in this last paragraph shows he didn't bother to understand me before replying.
He stated:
"Again, using human logic! Yet, if Jason looks at the case of John the Baptist, who the Hardshells affirm was born again while in his mother's womb, John the Baptist was given mental powers to believe the gospel!"
See my repudiation of this view above.
Brother Garrett stated:
"Does Jason not accept those prophetic statements about God writing his word upon the heart as describing regeneration? Does Jason not believe that the infant and idiot, in being regenerated, have this revelation, this writing upon their hearts, that they have "learned" of the Father?"
This writing, as in Hebrews 8:8-12, is addressed to the moral affections of the regenerate once they have the stony heart replaced with a heart of flesh. That it does not refer to teaching in an intellectual sense is evident from the very contrast in the text in verse 11. The "learning" of the new birth directly from the Father is an expression to communicate the change in moral orientation of the new birth; it does not actually connote logical, mental processes as, "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit..." (1 Cor. 2:9, 10)
No comments:
Post a Comment